This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Author: Liu, Chao; Xu, Dong Article Type: Report Geographic Code: 9CHIN Date: Jun 1, 2012 Words: 4386 Publication: The Baltic Journal of Road and Bridge Engineering ISSN: 1822-427X 1. Introduction The box girder with a closed cross-section, which has better global behaviour, larger torsion stiffness and an effective top and bottom concrete flange in compression, is widely used in large bridge structures. In particular, the prestressed concrete box girder bridges, which are suitable for various modern construction methods, have superior applicability. The prestressed concrete beam bridges also have greater economy in larger-span bridge structures. Since the 1970's, prestressed concrete box girder bridges have been predominately applied in the design of bridges with medium- and long-spans. Up to now, more than 20 continuous rigid frame bridges with the span larger than 200 m and more than 100 prestressed concrete continuous girder bridges with the span between 100 and 200 m have been built or are under construction. There are about 18 super-span continuous rigid frame bridges with the span larger than 240 m in the world, 13 of which are located in China. This amounts to more than 70% of the total and it is still increasing (Xu 2008). However, since many of the long-span prestressed concrete box girder bridges have been built more and more defects appeared. Box girder cracking and long-term deflection of the mid-span may be the most serious problems (Kristek et al. 2006; Kristek, Kohoutkova 2006; Lou 2006; Robertson 2005). For example, in Huangshi Yangtze River Bridge in China, completed in 1995, a crack width of 0.4 mm was found and long-term mid-span deflection with a max of 335 mm during the investigation in 1998 (Xie et al. 2007). For the secondary navigation channel of Humen Bridge, the actually measured mid-span deflection was 260 mm seven years after completion (Qi et al. 2007). The
1 of 12
26-Mar-14 4:51 PM
affecting the appearance of the bridge. Liu et al. Stress characteristics of box girder cross-section 2 of 12 26-Mar-14 4:51 PM . Vitek 1998. f = 10~20 (mm/year). L = 220~270 m. three months after strengthening. 2008. the phenomenon of long-term sagging of structure caused by creep does not happen. Angomas 2010. 2009. Huang et al. It is noteworthy that the cracking and deflection of structures are usually interactive. Therefore. 2007). A strengthening method proposed by VSL International was carried out by Black Micro (a local firm) in 1995. There are many reasons for the change in deflection which are usually coupled together (Barr.. and so on. The best representative.thefreelibrary. 2007). (3) the shear deformations and the shear lag. Shao et al.aspx?id=3. http://www. Research shows that there are about 15% of the errors in different mathematical models for creep and shrinkage but this error is always convergent (Xie et al. the relationship between the annual average rate of deflection (f) and the length of the main span (L) of long-span prestressed concrete beam bridges is as following (Xu 2008): L = 100~160 m. 2. However. the sag of the centre line had reached 1. Based on the initial statistical analysis. By 1990. Scantlebury 2006). the bridge suddenly collapsed catastrophically into the river (Burgoyne.Influence of cracking on deflections of concrete box girder bri.com/_/print/PrintArticle. 2000. f = 5~10 (mm/year). the problem of cracking and long-term deflection in larger-span prestressed concrete box girder bridges exists throughout the world and has restricted the development of long-span concrete bridges to some extent. the Koror-Babeldaob Bridge in Palau with the main span of 241 m. 2011): (1) the realistic prediction of concrete creep and shrinkage.. (2) the efficiency of prestressing to reduce deflections. was 92 mm three years after completion (Xie et al. with main span 301 m. whatever the error of the mathematical models is.2 m. That is to say. 2011. the understanding of cracking and deflection of box girder bridges is still insufficient and many strengthening methods cannot reach anticipated effect. The authors believe that under the condition that the quality of construction and materials matches the corresponding standards the primary influence on long-term deflection would be caused by cracking of the structure. Qi et al. L = 160~220 m. mid-span deflection of the Stolma Bridge in Norway. Rodriguez 2004. 2007. Gwozdziewicz et al... Stevula. The remedial work was completed in July 1996. (4) concrete cracking. was the longest prestressed concrete girder bridge in the world at that time. causing discomfort to the passersby and damage to the pavement. completed in 1977. f = 20~30 (mm/year). The bridges mentioned above are all prestressed concrete continuous beam bridges. More attention has been paid to the first three factors by engineers. Zheng et al. Unexpectedly. Hu 2005.
x] and [Q.z] (Du 1994. the bottom slab will crack and the shear stress in the web will increase because the closed cross-section of box girder will change into an open cross-section with concrete cracking. The difference between one-dimensional (1D) stress and 2D stress is as following: the crack generated by 1D stress begins from the edge of cross-section and not penetrates to the plate along thickness. the effect of longitudinal prestressing in the bottom slab is not accurately transferred to the web.thefreelibrary.Influence of cracking on deflections of concrete box girder bri. For example.sub. and then influence the longitudinal stress and deformation of the box girder significantly (Liu et al. which reduces the flexural shear flow of bottom slab by reducing the shear of box girder cross-section. 3 of 12 26-Mar-14 4:51 PM . while the shear stress is produced by shear force [Q.sub. 2. the anchoring force is so large that generates big stress concentration in anchor block. But with the development of the bigger prestressed strands. If the combined principal tensile stress exceeds the actual concrete ultimate tensile stress. 2 is in horizontal plane and the vertical prestressing not influences the stress at D. The six forces in box section are combined and decomposed in terms of stress.x] and [M. the bigger horizontal shear in plane of bottom slab will be generated and it combines with the flexural shear flow in bottom slab. http://www.com/_/print/PrintArticle. inclined cracking will occur in the plane of bottom slab. as shown in Fig. six forces are merged to normal stress and shear stress.y]) and torsion moment [M. The above mentioned condition was analyzed by theoretical calculations (Zhang 2007) and it was concluded that the max shear stress in the web would increase by 15~20% after bottom slab cracking. The shear stress (principal tensile stress) here is reduced only through optimizing the longitudinal prestressed tendons. For the box girder bridges. steel will yield and move among the concrete. and then the cracking in web will occur because the principal tensile stress of web is too large. Thus..z]. and the torsion moment [M. The internal force state of a spatial bridge structure is expresed by six forces: the axial force N. and the shear stress is not transferred.x] ([M. [FIGURE 1 OMITTED] The cross-section of bridge structure is composed by structural "plate" member with two-dimensional (2D) stress.sub.sub. If constructional reinforcements in bottom slab are insufficient. Once the above situation occurs. In addition.y].sub. 1 (Xu 2008).. Xiang 2001). 2010). the flexural moment along transverse and longitudinal directions [M.sub.sub.sub. The normal stress is produced by axial force N and flexural moment [M. as shown in Fig..y]). the principal tensile stress at D in Fig. and the shear stress is transferred.sub. Because the principal stress is composed of normal stress and shear stress.sub. the 2D stress (principal stress) in the middle layer of top and bottom flange of box girder is often ignored in design. the shear force along vertical and transverse directions [Q.. and these stresses are superimposed on each other. the stress characteristics of box girder cross-section is judged by principal stress.x] ([Q. while the crack generated by 2D stress penetrates to the plate along thickness.y].aspx?id=3. Because of the anchoring of internal prestressed tendons in bottom slab.
Xu 2008).Influence of cracking on deflections of concrete box girder bri. [FIGURE 2 OMITTED] 3.aspx?id=3. 3. Space-frame lattice model There is a detailed introduction about space frame lattice model (Liu et al.thefreelibrary. O'Brien. Liu et al. There are also advantages to be gained in the interpretation of results. combined with the tedium of interpreting the results. and the shear lag effect of the top and bottom slab of the box girder crosssection is expressed by different forces of different longitudinal grid elements. This model is like the up-stand finite element modelling presented by Eugene J. http://www. Kaklauskas et al. 4 shows a space-frame lattice model for a prestressed concrete box girder bridge with a single-cell at the third cantilever construction state. O'Brien and Damien L. the equivalent loading due to prestress is applied in a three-dimensional (3D) manner. because they are related directly to the design unnecessary to distinguish primary and secondary effects. 2008. There is no uncertainty concerning the location of the neutral axis about which eccentricity of prestress must be calculated. as shown in Fig. The effect of torsion and distortion of the box girder cross-section is converted into shear differences in the web grid. Fig. Thus.com/_/print/PrintArticle. a box girder is separated into the top slab. 1999). 5 shows a space-frame lattice model for a steel-concrete composite cable-stayed bridge with twin main girders. They presented a plate finite element model for a cellular bridge deck in 1999. Transverse diaphragms could also be incorporated into this model with ease. For example. Keogh 1998. has the advantage of automatically allowing for transverse cell distortion. as well as dealing with a varying neutral axis. 2008. Recently.. The model simulates the stress in every part of bridges according to the engineers because it takes into account all the spatial effects except for Poisson's ratio. Keogh (Keogh et al. 2010).. bottom slab and many webs. the space-frame lattice model for the analysis of concrete box girder cracking and deflection is presented.. Fig. When using this model. computer technology and calculation software have already developed into a new period and the application of this kind of model totally comes true (Grigorjeva et al. [FIGURE 3 OMITTED] [FIGURE 4 OMITTED] In the calculation model of the box girder structure expressed by the space-frame lattice the longitudinal effect (axial force and flexural moment) is carried by the longitudinal grid while the transverse effect (frame effect and distortion) is carried by the transverse grid. 2010. often ruled out its use. Unfortunately at that time. Many of the complications involved in determining equivalent loads due to prestress are avoided in this way. 1996. the number of elements required to achieve correct results was very large and this. This method is often simpler to implement as it is unnecessary to uncouple the in-plane and out-of-plane behaviours. Space-frame lattice model. The final calculation results are expressed by the force of longitudinal and 4 of 12 26-Mar-14 4:51 PM ..
[FIGURE 5 OMITTED] The space-frame lattice model. http://www.e. completed in 1995. while the height of box girder at the mid-span and the end of side span is 2. and longitudinal profile of bridge is shown in Fig.. i.. The top slab of the box girder is divided into 11 longitudinal grids. The situation of this bridge. transverse grids. 6.thefreelibrary. detected in 2007.Influence of cracking on deflections of concrete box girder bri. is suitable for analysis on stress of the entire cross-section. The stress state of random grid elements in the model may be biaxial in plane (Fig. tri-directional prestressing system in longitudinal. The height of box girder at pier is 5. transverse and vertical directions (Fig. The box girder cracking is determined by analyzing the stress state of grid elements at the space-frame lattice model and simulated by partially removing the element or modifying the rigidity of the element at the cracked region..com/_/print/PrintArticle.aspx?id=3. Calculation example of a bridge with cracking and deflection 4. while the bottom slab is divided into 5 longitudinal grids. The division of the cross-section is shown in Fig. 8). 11. The bridge contains the whole internal prestressing system. Calculation model The space-frame lattice model of the half bridge is shown in Fig. For the layout of internal prestressed tendons the web is divided into one longitudinal grid only. 5 of 12 26-Mar-14 4:51 PM . The main girder with single box and single cell is shown in Fig. 10. the output results of which are more meticulous and numerous than the ones expressed by the single beam model.. is as following: The photos of inclined cracks in the web and longitudinal cracks in the bottom slab are shown in Fig. 7.2.1.. and then the numerical simulation process is repeated to find the final behaviours of the structure.4 m which changes by quadratic parabola. Introduction To try to find the influence of cracking on the deflection of a structure an actual bridge with cracking and deflection was simulated and analyzed by the space-frame lattice model. 4. [FIGURE 6 OMITTED] [FIGURE 7 OMITTED] [FIGURE 8 OMITTED] [FIGURE 9 OMITTED] 4. This bridge is a prestressed concrete continuous box girder bridge with (80 + 100 + 80) m spans.8 m. 2). 9.
http://www. The shear stress at A. Secondly. [FIGURE 13 OMITTED] [FIGURE 14 OMITTED] 6 of 12 26-Mar-14 4:51 PM . B and C in webs is regarded as the same approximate. [FIGURE 10 OMITTED] [FIGURE 11 OMITTED] [FIGURE 12 OMITTED] 4. 4. 2) were calculated and analyzed.1. which were caused by bottom slab cracking.com/_/print/PrintArticle. the transverse frame action of the bottom slab was interrupted and the redistribution of internal forces due to bottom slab cracking could be simulated. Above Figs shows that the increment of normal stress in the lower flange of web (point C) at cracking region is big after bottom slab cracking. the partial vertical elements at regions of the web with larger principal tensile stresses... with principal tensile stresses at D greater than 2.Influence of cracking on deflections of concrete box girder bri.5 MPa. 15 shows the data about variation of shear stress of the web under dead load along the half bridge after bottom slab cracking. In the following figures the [sigma] is normal stress and the [increment of [sigma]] is variation of normal stress.3.3. Simulation of bottom slab cracking The stresses at D (Fig. were then removed. The box girder cracking was simulated approximately by removing the partial elements of the space-frame lattice model..thefreelibrary.3. 12a. Firstly. were removed to simulate the stress state of the structure after web cracking.aspx?id=3. 4. The calculation results are the following. the influence of 12 years creeping is considered. Calculation results of normal stress under dead load after bottom slab cracking Figs 13 and 14 show the data about variation of normal stress at A and C of the web under dead load along the half bridge after bottom slab cracking. The location of bottom slab cracking is shown in Fig. Calculation results of shear stress under dead load after bottom slab cracking Fig. the partial elements at the regions of the bottom slab with larger principal tensile stresses were removed to analyze the stress state of the structure after bottom slab cracking. The calculation was carried out according to the true construction stages of this bridge.2. In the following figures the t is shear stress and the [increment of [tau]] is variation of shear stress. The transverse elements of the bottom slab.. The internal forces of the structure were redistributed after removal of partial elements of the bottom slab at cracked regions. With this.
It is apparent that the variation of box girder deflection under dead load after bottom slab cracking is the following: 1) the box girder at the side-span had downward variation of deflection.3. http://www.8 mm.7 cm. The effects of dead load. the max of which was about 4.7 MPa and 250%. T 3) The bottom slab cracking has less influence on the deflection of structure under live load. the max of which was about 6.3. the bottom slab cracking has great influence on the principle stress of web and it accelerates the incline cracking of web.3.5.Influence of cracking on deflections of concrete box girder bri. 2) The variation of shear stress in web under live load is less. temperature and settlement of supports are taken into account and combined in the results of calculation. and the [increment of [sigma]] and [increment of [sigma]]/[sigma]of which reach 1. 17 shows the variation of max principal tensile stresses at A and C of the web along the half bridge after bottom slab cracking. 2) the box girder at mid-span had upward variation of deflection. [FIGURE 15 OMITTED] It is obvious that the shear stress of web at cracking region increases greatly after bottom slab cracking.com/_/print/PrintArticle. Calculation results of deflection under dead load after bottom slab cracking Fig. Calculation results of principal tensile stress after bottom slab cracking Fig. and the max [increment of [tau]] and [increment of [tau]]/[tau] of which is 0.aspx?id=3... Fig. Brief summary a) The removal of partial elements of the bottom slab at cracked regions 7 of 12 26-Mar-14 4:51 PM . 16 shows the deflection variations of the box girder under dead load along the half bridge after bottom slab cracking. 4. 17 shows that the increment of principle tensile stress at C reaches 3.thefreelibrary.6. 4. Calculation results under live load after bottom slab cracking The following results are concluded according to the calculation results: 1) The variation of normal stress in the lower flange of web at cracking region under live load is bigger..7 MPa after bottom slab cracking. Thus.3. [FIGURE 16 OMITTED] 4..3. 4. and the max increment is 0.4. live load.8 cm.1 MPa and 26%.
5 cm. Because these cracks were caused by bending they were local and not penetrative..Influence of cracking on deflections of concrete box girder bri.. Simulation of web cracking The principal tensile stress of the web near the cracked region of the bottom slab will increase and that may cause web cracking. The max deflection at the side span is about 5. (2) The cracks paralleled to the longitudinal prestressed tendons at regions with larger tensile stress outside the plane of the bottom slab of the box girder were produced mainly by the longitudinal prestressing in the bottom slab.thefreelibrary. The cracked location of the web is shown in Fig.e. [FIGURE 17 OMITTED] [FIGURE 18 OMITTED] Fig. while at mid-span is about 7.4. the inclined cracking of the web was penetrative.. Thus.8 cm. This meets the first item of the inspecting results cited in Table 1. 18 shows the variation of box girder deflection along the whole bridge when the web cracking happened due to cracking of the bottom slab.. b) Apart from the cracking region of the bottom slab the principal stress of the web is basically unchanged. c) The cracking has a significant influence on the deflection of the structure. local cracking generates a change in deflection along the whole bridge. http://www. This meets the second item of the inspecting results cited in Table 1.. i. i. i. 4.. generates the increase of local principal tensile stresses of the web.5.. d) The variation of structural deflection after bottom slab cracking is small under live load. the box girder deflection under dead load develops sequentially after web cracking.e.e. the box girder deflection at the side-span develops sequentially downward.aspx?id=3. 12b. (3) Although the whole process of box girder cracking and long-term deflection simulated by removing elements of the space-frame lattice model was 8 of 12 26-Mar-14 4:51 PM . Comparison The calculation results are compared with the actual bridge status: (1) The region with larger principal tensile stresses existed in the web of the side-span. 4. On the basis of the simulation of bottom slab cracking the web cracking was simulated again by removing the vertical elements that connected the top slab and bottom slab at regions with more than principal tensile stress 2.5 MPa of the web. while at mid-span develops sequentially upward.com/_/print/PrintArticle.
3846/bjrbe. F. C.doi.. the phenomenon of concrete cracking happens. Second. P. The crack has great influence on the deflection of structures according to the application of the space-frame lattice model in calculation and analysis of an actual bridge. live load etc. ISBN 7560812856. P. 2000. A. 5.org/10. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 24(6): 603-609.doi. Scantlebury.0000121 Burgoyne. J. the cracking and weakened rigidity of structure soften its members.121-128 Gwozdziewicz. Juozapaitis.. Why did Palau Bridge Collapse? The Structural Engineer 84(11): 30-37.1061/(ASCE)CF. Jurkiewiez.aspx?id=3.org/10. new cracking will appear and make the structure more flexible.3. there is still need to accumulate more data about cracking and deflection of bridges to explain the reason of distress of bridges..15 References Barr. 2006. Paeglitis. T. H.2008. G. 236 p. http://www. Z.. Under external influences such as creep.Influence of cracking on deflections of concrete box girder bri. DOI: 10. Long Term 9 of 12 26-Mar-14 4:51 PM . J..3846/1822-427X. Angomas. http://dx. B. Certainly.. temperature. Kamaitis. Grigorjeva. At the same time.. 2008. Destrebecq.. F. many aspects of the calculation model should be researched further in order to completely simulate the whole process of long-term deflection of box girder bridges and to get more accurate results. A. approximate the calculation results meet the trend of the third item of the inspecting results cited in Table 1. Conclusions 1. R. Thus.thefreelibrary.2012. cracking will occur continuously and the deflection will increase continuously. An assessment for the process of cracking and deflection of bridges is as following: First.. the integral rigidity of the box girder cross-section is weakened due to cracking. 2010. Finite Element Modelling for Static Behaviour Analysis of Suspension Bridges with Varying Rigidity of Main Cables. Shanghai: Tongji University Press. http://dx. The Baltic Journal of Road and Bridge Engineering 3(3): 121-128.com/_/print/PrintArticle. Finally. the deflection of structure begins to develop because the effect of longitudinal prestressing in the bottom slab cannot be transferred to the whole cross-section of the box girder effectively.1943-5509. 2. Differences between Calculated and Measured Long-Term Deflections in a Prestressed Concrete Girder Bridge. Analysis of Bridge Structure. Du. 1994.. Third.
Sokolov. Kohoutkova.. D.3. Journal of Highway and Transportation Research and Development 23(4): 84-87. 1st edition. 2005. E. 2006. Z. 355-356... in The 2nd International Conference on Structural Health Monitoring of Intelligent Infrastructure. Serviceability of Concrete Structures with Regards to Material Behaviors and Cyclic Loading. Q.. P. http://dx. Space Frame Lattice Model for Stress Analysis of Bridge. in The 3rd International Conference on Bridge Maintenance. Y. D. Zheng. Zich.doi.. The Baltic Journal of Road and Bridge Engineering 5(2): 98-103.1061/40492(2000)159 Hu.. L.3846 /1822-427X. Huang. Spon Press.doi.2010. 2005.. 2010. Chen. Z.aspx?id=3.. 2006. Bridge DeckAnalysis.1016 /S0045-7949(98)00148-5 O'Brien.0. H. http://www. 2006. 2006. Excessive Deflections of Concrete Bridges Affect Safety.1016/0952-5807(95)00075-5 Kristek. Reason Analysis and Countermeasures for 10 of 12 26-Mar-14 4:51 PM .1016/S0045-7949(98)00148-5 Qi. H. Intelligent Control on Long-run Deflection for Prestressed Concrete Bridges. Structural Engineering Review 8(4): 357-366.org/10.doi. 336 p. P. D.. R.. Li. A. Kaklauskas. A. 2009.org/10. L.org/10. D. C. D. Shenzhen. Recommendation on the Use of a 3-D Grillage Model for Bridge Deck Analysis. http://dx. Box Girder Bridge Deflections. C. Porto.doi.Influence of cracking on deflections of concrete box girder bri. Girdzius. http://dx. Xu. Liu.doi. July 16-19.. Philadelphia Pennsylvania USA: ASCE. Bazant. V. Journal of Tongji University 37(1): 1-5. Main Faults in Large Span Beam Bridges. J. Cause Analysis for Shear Crack and Deflection of Long Span Prestressed Concrete Box-Girder Bridge. F. 1996. E. Safety and Management. of China.org/10. L. 2009. 1999. D. D. Analysis of Differential Shrinkage Deflection for PC Box-Girder Bridges. 1998.thefreelibrary. D. Zhang. Xu. The Baltic Journal of Road and Bridge Engineering 3(2): 51-56. Maintenance and Management. ISSN:1002-0268. Kohoutkova..2006-04-020 Liu. C. G... V. November 16-18.3846/bjrbe..14 O'Brien. Z. ISBN 0419225005. ACI Concrete International 28(1): 55-63. A. Xiang. 2000: 1-8. J.doi. Lou. Kristek. Keogh. 2007. of the of Structures Congress 2000. A. Keogh.com/_/print/PrintArticle.. Upstand Finite Element Analysis of Slab Bridges. E. Architectural and Environmental Engineering 31(4): 60-65. M. R. Computers and Structures 69(6): 671-683. J. S. http://dx. 1563-1569. Bacinskas. Journal of Civil. in Proc. 2008. http://dx. J...org/10. R.org/10. O'Brien. L.. http://dx.51-56 Keogh.2008. D. Numerical Deformation Analysis of Bridge Concrete Girders.
Journal of Highway and Transportation Research and Development 24(1): 47-50. http://dx. Shanghai. Parameter Sensitivity Analysis of Vertical Deflection for Long-Span Continuous Rigid-Frame Bridge. Design of Long Span Concrete Box Girder Bridges: Challenges and Solutions. Siping Rd.doi. Journal of Chongqing Jiaotong University 26(6): 46-49.engstruct. Advanced Materials Research (163-167): 1500-1504.. Engineering Structures 27(12): 1820-1827. Xie. X.1500 Received 18 August 2010. N.. ISBN 9787114073540. Beijing: China Communications Press. Hu.aspx?id=3.org/10. (2) xu_dong@tongji. External Prestressing Technology of Bridge. Advanced Materials Research (163-167): 1207-1212. J.thefreelibrary.. 118 p. F. Pan. accepted 6 April 2011 Chao Liu (1) ([mail]).scientific.4028 /www.cn Table 1. F. Q. 2008.4028/www. State of Art of Long-Term Deflection for Long Span Prestressed Concrete Box-Girder Bridge. H. Liu. Prediction of Vertical Deflections for a Long-Span Prestressed Concrete Bridge Structure. G.. http://www. D.1207 Stevula. Rodriguez.org/10. Master's Thesis. Yu. Xu. 2011. Vitek. Nashville TN USA: ASCE. D. 315 p.com/_/print/PrintArticle. Xiang. H.doi.scientific...edu.1239 Shanghai.. Theory of Advanced Bridge Structure. Robertson. 2007. Some Details of Long-Term Analysis of Concrete Bridges. http://dx. 2011. Hungary.. 200092. of Structures Congress 2004 "Building on the Past: Securing the Future". F. H.. 333 p. J. in The 2nd International PhD Symposium in Civil Engineering. Situation of the bridge Item Situation 11 of 12 26-Mar-14 4:51 PM . Effects Analysis of Web Cracks on Long-Term Deformation of Large Span Pre-Stressed Concrete Continuous Box Girder Bridge. 2005. Zheng. in Proc. Study of Some Key Points of Externally Prestressed Concrete Bridge in Elastic Stage. M. I. Zheng. 2004: 361-371.cn.163-167. Excessive Deflection of Midspan in Long-Span Continuous Rigid Frame Bridges. http://dx. Tongji University. 26-28.163-167. ISBN 7114037961. L. Beijing: China Communications Press. Dong Xu (2) Dept of Bridge Engineering. Tongji University. L. 2001.net/AMR. Wang..org/10.. X. 1998. China E-mails: (1) lctj@tongji. S. Li.013 Shao. Zhang.edu. B.05.doi.net/AMR. J. Budapest. 2004. Yan.1016/j.2005. 2007.. Y.Influence of cracking on deflections of concrete box girder bri.
. http://www. Cengage Learning. 12 of 12 26-Mar-14 4:51 PM .Influence of cracking on deflections of concrete box girder bri. The max downward deflection of the girder in the side span was about 5..25 m.15~0. 1 The inclined cracks in the box girder webs were numerous within 5 m of both side-span supports.. Many parallel cracks in the longitudinal direction of the bridge existed along the bottom slab of the box girder at mid-span of both sidespans. and the max width reached 0.com/_/print/PrintArticle. The most widths of cracks were 0.aspx?id=3.thefreelibrary.25 mm. 2 3 COPYRIGHT 2012 Vilnius Gediminas Technical University Copyright 2012 Gale.4 cm. while the max upward deflection of the girder at mid-span was about 7 cm. All rights reserved. The spaces between cracks were 15-40 cm.5 mm.1 mm and the max width reached 0. The most lengths of cracks were between 0..
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?